No Nukes? Pelosi, Bush, Clinton, and many environmentalists say Yes Nukes!

Excerpts from an article by Duncan Currie in The American on politicians and environmentalists increasingly warming to nuclear power-- given growing energy dependence and climate change concerns...

President Bush is often met with cyni­cism when he cites nuclear energy as a way to curb greenhouse gas emis­sions. But what about House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the San Francisco Democrat, who says nuclear power “has to be on the table” in any discussion of climate-change policy? Or Senator Hillary Clinton, who says it “has to be part of our energy solution”?...

A new study by the National Petroleum Council, titled “Hard Truths,” points out that nuclear currently represents only about 6 percent of the total energy mix globally. That won’t change over the next 20 years “unless nuclear generation is promoted for policy objectives such as limiting carbon dioxide emissions or enhancing energy security.” It seems that those policy objectives are becoming more and more enticing....

This year, the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) expects to field a raft of building applications for new nuclear plants. China, India, and other Asian countries are already moving ahead with blueprints for more reactors....

According to the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), commercial nuclear power currently provides nearly 20 percent of America’s elec­tricity, with just over 100 operating reactors in 31 states. In 2006, the states most dependent on nuclear power for their electricity needs included Vermont (75 percent), New Jersey (53 percent), and South Carolina (52 percent). Nuclear also accounted for the largest portion of electric­ity generation in Illinois, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and New York....

“What brought me to nuclear in the first place was the environmental aspect of it,” [Christine Todd Whitman] says. “It doesn’t produce greenhouse gases,” nor does it produce such “regulated emissions” as sulfur dioxide and mercury. She is sensitive to linger­ing safety concerns, but stresses that the U.S. nuclear industry boasts a “very good” record. Even the 1979 Three Mile Island accident, Whitman argues, wound up being a success story in terms of damage control; there were no injuries to plant workers or to residents of local communities.

Three Mile Island did, however, spark a public backlash against nuclear power, from which the industry has still not totally recovered. The par­tial meltdown near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, occurred just days after “The China Syndrome,” Jane Fonda’s antinuclear movie, opened in the­aters nationwide. Since then, there has not been a single new reactor ordered and built in the United States. The much more serious melt­down at Chernobyl in the Soviet Union in 1986 strengthened antinuclear taboos. But that was before fighting climate change became the focus of green movements across the globe. The cam­paign to reduce greenhouse gases has made some environmentalists more sympathetic to a technology they once strenuously opposed....

France generates more of its electricity—almost 80 percent—from nuclear power than any other country. In 2006, according to the NEI, Belgium and Sweden produced, respectively, about 54 percent and 48 percent of their electric­ity with nuclear, though both are committed to closing their reactors eventually. Among the other countries most reliant on nuclear were Lithuania (more than 70 percent); Ukraine (just under 50 percent); and South Korea and Switzerland (each a bit below 40 percent). Several of the post-Communist-era East European countries have plans to build new reactors, largely to mitigate their dependence on Russian energy supplies....

Riccio points to a 2003 study at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology which found “four critical problems” with expanding nuclear power use: cost, safety, waste, and prolif­eration. “In deregulated markets, nuclear power is not now cost-competitive with coal and natu­ral gas,” the authors said. Meanwhile, “We know little about the safety of the overall fuel cycle, beyond reactor operation.”

None of the four hurdles, however, was deemed insurmountable by the MIT researchers. For one thing, nuclear plants may be costly to build and bring online, but they are relatively cheap to operate. And a carbon tax would instantly make them more competitive with coal and gas. “We believe the nuclear option should be retained,” the report concluded, “precisely because it is an important carbon-free source of power that can potentially make a significant contribution to future electricity supply.”

In terms of waste, the MIT study reckoned that “successful operation of the planned disposal facility at Yucca Mountain would ease, but not solve, the waste issue for the U.S. and other coun­tries if nuclear power expands substantially.” So why not make Yucca into a national waste repos­itory? That’s what the Bush administration has tried to do since 2001. But there are several poten­tial roadblocks, including a license review by the NRC, litigation battles, concern over radiation standards, and a denial of funding by Congress....